THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

ican ...
no offence meant , just my opinion . hbg

So, what's the US' tally of Iraqis it's mass murdered, er, collaterally damaged, so far in it's adventure there?

Ican, no is denying that Saddam was a brutal regime who killed and oppressed its own citizens. We went to war with Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kawait, yet when he did most of the unspeakable killing we did nothing.
I agree! Worse, we helped Saddam in his conflict with Iran. While we along with others didn't create the monster, we aided and abetted him until he invaded Kuwait. Afterward we abetted him by not interceding and stopping his mass murder of Kurds and Shia. We could write pages on our past blunders and/or frauds. But that doesn't fix anything other than alert us to what we ought to stop doing and not do again. One thing we ought not do again is tolerate waiting to stop these tyrants until they have achieved the capability of murdering millions of civilians (e.g., Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, to name a few). Waiting until they have murdered thousands was and is already too long to wait.

At the time of the invasion there was nothing that stood out from Saddam Hussein that could not have been said about any number of brutal dictators and we were in no more danger from Iraq than we were from them. There was no imminent threat that couldn't have dealt with the same as we have dealt with other threats in the word. Other countries abuse their citizens and have WMD and either have or close to having nuclear weapons, yet we didn't talk about invading them.
Again, I agree. At the time of our invasion of Iraq (more than a year after we invaded Afghanistan), Saddam was murdering civilians at a greater rate than the others, but the others were nearly as deadly. They all were allowing sanctuary to al-Qaeda, just not quite as many.

You are right, the danger presented by Saddam was not imminent. Historically we have waited for the danger to become imminent and then acted with the result that millions of civilians were murdered before as well as after we reacted. Yes, we could have waited and dealt with the threat presented by Saddam allowing sanctuary to those sworn to murder us, only after that threat became imminent. But is such waiting the right thing to do? Is such waiting moral? Is such waiting humane? Is such waiting compassionate? Is such waiting civilized? Is such waiting in any civilian's interest? Is such waiting risk free? Waiting until a danger becomes imminent may be too late to prevent its continuation. I think the answer to all seven of these questions is a resounding (i.e., shouting) HELL NO!

Moreover, life for Iraqis has not improved, they are still dying everyday and their living conditions have actually declined since the invasion. Doing a death comparison of before and after the invasion of Iraq is not really possible since there is no reliable data of Iraqi civilian deaths since the invasion of Iraq.
I agree partially! Iraqis are clearly dying violently everyday, but they are dying violently at less than half the rate they were dying before our invasion. Their living conditions are deterioriating thanks to the Saddanist & al-Qaeda et al mass murderers and destroyers in their midst, but at least more are living than would otherwise. And that murder rate is so far decreasing every month.

While death rate estimates are just that, estimates, they are not "impossible". They are not only possible, they are accurate enough. The estimate that Saddam murdered 576,000 on his watch could be off plus or minus 50% and still be accurate enough. Suppose it was half 576,000. That's still an horrific murder rate of more than 1,000 per month or more than 32 per day, and that is more than 10% greater than the maximum estimated average daily death rate since we invaded Iraq. The estimated violent death rate of Iraqi civilians since our invasion is more accurate, since the dead are not being buried in secret mass graves. However if you go to my source, you'll see that their estimate is given as a maximum and a minimum. I used their maximum estimate.

The Example of Our First President
by Edward Hudgins

[This commentary is from The Objectivist Center/Atlas Society archives, dated February 26, 2004. It originally appeared in The Washington Times.]

George Washington unfortunately has become a cliché. For an older generation, he was too often treated as such a mythic figure that it was difficult to appreciate his true importance. In today’s politically correct society many treat him as a white, male oppressor. Most of us celebrate his birthday by shopping the sales at the mall. This is not a bad use of our time, but it is appropriate to take a moment to reflect on the real greatness of the real Washington and the moral lessons he taught us.

Washington exemplified the spirit of early America. He was in his heart and for most of his life a farmer and an innovator who developed new crops and agricultural techniques. He valued the production of wealth as a worthy goal in life. But he also understood that the freedom to produce often must be fought for.

Washington was the general who won America’s independence from Britain, then one of the world’s strongest powers. It was an incredible feat. In 1777, when he marched his 12,000 ragtag volunteers to winter camp at Valley Forge, their prospects were as bleak as the bitter weather. Some 2,000 men died from the brutal cold and from sickness. But the volunteers persevered in large part because of Washington, who forged them into a formidable army. He was no great orator but he had the inspiring words of Thomas Paine read to his frozen troops: “These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” This certainly is an appropriate epitaph for Washington and the Continental Army soldiers who ensured the survival of the United States.

Washington’s achievements reflected his outstanding moral character. He set for himself the highest standards in everything he did and thus became exemplar for his associates and his fellow countrymen. Indeed, when he presided over the Constitutional Convention, he spoke little. It was his example—the fact that the other delegates were in the presence of Washington—that kept those delegates on their best behavior and inspired them to look to the good of the country.

But Washington was not some ever-frowning moralist; he enjoyed life, whether at a dance or dinner party or just riding through his beloved Mt. Vernon estate.

Washington hardly considered himself a philosopher like his friend Thomas Jefferson. But he lived his philosophy. For example, he was born into a slave society but his experiences in life led him appreciate the evils of that institution. He freed his slaves at his death. [Added note: He also provided for their upkeep, education or training for trades after they were freed.]

Perhaps Washington’s most important legacy was his attitude towards political power. After his victory over Britain some suggested that he be made king of the new America. He adamantly refused. He wanted to return to his farm. In this he followed the example of the retired Roman Senator Cincinnatus who was called away from his farm by a Senate that gave him absolute power to defeat an invading army. As general, Cincinnatus accomplished his goal in a matter of weeks and then, with total power, the esteem of his people and an army in his hands, gave up his position and returned to his plough. Sculptor Jean Antoine Houdon’s statue in the Virginia state house, the only one Washington every posed for, depicts him as a general setting aside his sword and returning to civilian life.

Illustrative of his deep integrity, Washington resigned from the Cincinnati Society, an organization for Revolutionary War veterans, because he feared it would create in the new nation a hereditary class of nobles. Washington believed that individuals should be honored for their own achievements, not for the achievements of their ancestors.

Washington, our first president, set the example for future presidents by limiting himself to two terms in office. He is reputed to have said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master." This is an understanding that too many American citizens and politicians have lost.

George Washington indeed should be honored by all Americans today as he was by Henry Lee who wrote at the time of Washington’s passing that he was “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

The Objectivist Center

And, what should be done with mass murdering malignancies, again?

Gen. Tommy Franks, the top officer in the U.S. Central Command for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, summed up the American military's attitude when he told reporters during the Afghan campaign, "We don't do body counts."

In fact, the Pentagon stopped counting the people killed by its soldiers after the Vietnam war, where the numbers publicized were often inflated by field commanders and Pentagon officials in attempts to show the war was going better than it was. Those attempts ultimately backfired when the body counts provided fuel for the anti-war movement.

WASHINGTON - The Navy's former general counsel warned Pentagon officials two years before the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that circumventing international agreements on torture and detainees' treatment would invite abuse, according to a published report.

Legal theories granting the president the right to authorize abuse in spite of the Geneva Conventions were unlawful, dangerous and erroneous, Alberto J. Mora advised officials in a secret memo. The 22-page document was obtained by The New Yorker for a story in its Feb. 27 issue.

A Pentagon spokeswoman said Sunday she had not read the magazine story.

The memo from July 7, 2004, recounted Mora's 2 1/2-year effort to halt a policy that he feared would authorize cruelty toward suspected terrorists.

It also indicates that some lawyers in the Justice and Defense departments objected to the legal course the administration undertook, according to the report.

Mora said Navy intelligence officers reported in 2002 that military-intelligence interrogators at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were engaging in escalating levels of physical and psychological abuse rumored to have been authorized at a high level in Washington.

"I was appalled by the whole thing," Mora told the magazine. "It was clearly abusive and it was clearly contrary to everything we were ever taught about American values."

Mora said he thought his concerns were being addressed by a special group set up by the Pentagon. But he discovered in January 2003 that a Justice Department opinion had negated his arguments with what he described as "an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the president's commander in chief authority."

When the first pictures from the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib appeared in the press in spring 2004, Mora said, he felt stunned and dismayed that what he had warned against had taken place, and in a different setting than Guantanamo.

Mora retired this year and now is a general counsel for Wal-Mart.

A U.N. report issued last week called for the U.S. to close its prison at Guantanamo Bay. In response, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld rejected accusations of torture or abuse and said the detention facility is well-run.

Ican, you crack me up.

If you (or your chosen author) want to draw a parallell between present-day Iraq and the American states in 1777, surely Washington's men would agree with that.....yearning to throw of the oppressors yoke, they would choose the obvious parallell between themselves and the Iraqis.
...

Ican we didn't even count Iraqi deaths in the beginning, so we how can any data be an accurate one?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/casualties.html

Quote:

Gen. Tommy Franks, the top officer in the U.S. Central Command for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, summed up the American military's attitude when he told reporters during the Afghan campaign, "We don't do body counts."

In fact, the Pentagon stopped counting the people killed by its soldiers after the Vietnam war, where the numbers publicized were often inflated by field commanders and Pentagon officials in attempts to show the war was going better than it was. Those attempts ultimately backfired when the body counts provided fuel for the anti-war movement.

...

iraqbodycount.org
The worldwide update of reported civilian deaths in the Iraq war and occupation.

Quick-FAQ
A MAJOR NEW STUDY FROM IRAQ BODY COUNT

The Iraq Body Count project is a not-for-profit organisation staffed entirely by volunteers and funded by donations.

If you find the information on this site useful and would like to support our work, please consider making a donation.

About the IBC project Press releases Links IBC in the media IBC Falluja Archive Contacts News & Comment Archive Participate!

The IRAQ BODY COUNT Database

This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion. Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available here and on various IBC web counters which may be freely displayed on any website or homepage, where they are automatically updated without further intervention. Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. This method is also used to deal with any residual uncertainty about the civilian or non-combatant status of the dead. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication

civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks).

Some would say that in today's world, we are the 'reactionaries.'

Cycloptichorn

McTag wrote:

Ican, you crack me up.

If you (or your chosen author) want to draw a parallell between present-day Iraq and the American states in 1777, surely Washington's men would agree with that.....yearning to throw of the oppressors yoke, they would choose the obvious parallell between themselves and the Iraqis.
...

Gad! You missed the point entirely!

Washington's men did not choose to mass murder civilians in order to secure their liberty. Instead, they chose to drive out those that were tyrannizing their fellow civilians. In the case of Washington's men, they sought with the aid of the French military (i.e., the French Navy) to secure their liberty by driving out the civilian tyrannizing, reactionary British military. In the case of the current Iraqi military, they are seeking with the aid of the American military to secure their liberty by driving out the civilian mass murdering, reactionary Saddamists & al-Qaeda et al.

So, if our goal is getting these mass murdering, er collateral damaging, fanatics to completely abandon their repeatedly stated goals, then the only thing that will ultimately get these fanatics to completely abandon their repeatedly stated goals, is to exterminate them.

How do we start exterminating these mass murdering, er collateral damaging, fanatics, if that is our goal?

Ican, one of your links didn't work, the other is a conservative source writen by none other than Jeff Gannon, the planted news reporter by George Bush. Hardly an unbiased source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1416370,00.html

Estimate of Saddam's Victims Tops One Million
Talon News ^ | 12/12/2003 | Jeff Gannon

http://www.able2know.com/forums/posting.php